1.Does
the City and CRA desire to own the real property interests, (Parcel 3, Parcel 4
in part) in the marina area including the riparian rights and the submerged
lands that are leased or deeded to the existing property owner?

Ken Parker, City
Manager, advised City Council and the CRA of the policy questions that need to
be answered so that he and Margaret Roberts, City Attorney, can continue with
negotiations of the Riverwalk RFP. It is being held as a joint meeting because
there are properties owned by both entities. Mr. Parker briefly discussed the
proposal on the table. He conveyed information to CRA/CC regarding a 9000 sq.
ft. portion of parcel #4.

Ms. Roberts asked if
parcel 1 is being considered. Mr. Parker said no.

Vice Mayor Pohlmann asked
if the 9000 sq. ft. property would be leased. Mr. Parker said no, it would be
retained by the developer, and pointed out a different area where lease lands
would be.

Discussion was held
regarding deeded submerged lands.

Councilman Ford asked
about owning land and water rights in one spot vs. another. Buddy LaCour said
they can but they are conceding to the City/CRA.

Discussion was held regarding
parking. Mr. LaCour explained that the comp plan provides objectives that
include shared parking. He said they are willing to put the improvements in for
a parking lot.

Councilman Ford is concerned
with using taxpayer’s money in trade for the unknown.

Mr. LaCour disagrees.
He advised that they have filed a site plan that goes hand and hand with the
RFP proposal. He says they will pay for the improvements of the temporary
parking area. Mr. LaCour said they are opening a marina that will be open to
the public and a restaurant open to the public where today there is nothing.

Mayor Green says the trade
is for temporary use of parking. Mr. LaCour said they are willing to pay the
City 2% from food sales that would go into the parking fund to pay for trash
cans, lighting, benches, etc. that is not there now. This offer is part of
their proposal.

Member Blahnik said
there is no parking to walk the bridge. She would like a better place to park
her car when she walks the bridge.

Vice Mayor Pohlmann asked
if the Galbreath property was purchased from the family and then leased back. Attorney
Roberts confirmed yes. Vice Mayor Pohlmann supports the use of temporary
parking in the area. Mr. LaCour reminded them he is paying for the improvements
to the parking area.

Councilman Burnette said
it is important to have a revenue stream with the parking. He wants to also
talk about parcels 8, 9, 12, and 16. Mayor Green asked if he supports shared
parking. Councilman Burnette said yes.

Councilman Kennedy asked
if the temporary parking is going to be there in the future. Attorney Roberts said
not according to the current plan. Councilman Kennedy asked if Mr. LaCour would
take care of the maintenance costs of the parking lot. Mr. LaCour said they
envisioned it to be paid for by the 2% of the food sales being paid by them to
the City.

Mayor Green asked
what restaurant is planned. Mr. LaCour explained the building being built per
the plans: a Marine Activity building that will be on the 9000 sq. ft. portion,
and the Riverboat restaurant. Mayor Green asked how many parking spots they
need. Mr. LaCour said 109 by code. The temporary parking area will consist of
50 spots.

Councilman Ford doesn't
want the park land to be dominated by parking lots and private businesses. Mr.
LaCour explained the rest of the park land is approx. 350,000 sq. ft.

Mayor Green asked Mr.
Parker how much parking would be needed if the City was just doing a park. Mr.
Parker said it depends how the park is classified. An active park needs more
than passive parks.

Policy question #1: Is
it acceptable for them to retain parcel #3, #4 in part? Vice Mayor Pohlmann
said yes, the City should not get involved. Member Blahnik agrees. Member
Talluto said no. Councilman Ford said no. Councilman Kennedy said yes. Councilman
Burnette said yes but wants to negotiate a sizeable amount of land south of Herbert
St. Mayor Green advised that he will abstain from voting because of previous
allegations of a conflict.

Vote on policy question #1: 4-2 in support of
the proposer owning parcel #3 and 9000 sq. ft. of parcel #4 (the old
Sweetwater’s site).

2.If
yes (the City and CRA desire to own the real property in the marina area, then

Would the City and CRA consider leasing the
marina to the developer on a long term lease similar to the Palmer Land Lease?

Palmer owns the buildings and the City owns
the land under the buildings. Palmer pays a land lease payment to the City on
an annual basis. There was a primary term of fifty (50) years with a renewal
term included in the land lease. I would see it structured similarly to the
Palmer lease with the exception that the private entity is responsible for all
taxes, insurance and maintenance related to the real property lease interest.
Palmer is tax exempted that is why I pointed out the tax difference. The other
items in the lease would be similar to the Palmer land lease.

Attorney Roberts said
policy question #2 is no longer an issue because the proposer will retain
ownership of the marina area.

3.Does
the City and CRA desire to own the deeded submerged lands adjacent to Parcel 4,
5 and 6 and the riparian rights?

Parcel 4 in part is located within the
Sweetwater site and includes approximately 9,000 square feet and the deeded
submerged lands. The private developer desires to construct a harbor master
building with public restrooms that would be available for the marina use as
well as for park use. The City’s ownership of the riparian rights preserves
the public access to and use of the water resource.

Attorney Roberts
advised that the City/CRA will own the submerged land on the east and south of
the point and that is consistent with previous directions of the City/CRA. The
riparian rights will be retained by the City/CRA. Mr. LaCour stated he wants access
to a dock to the restaurant boat. He agrees the City/CRA will retain riparian
rights to the east and south of the point.

Attorney Roberts asked
Mr. LaCour if he wants the riparian rights on the north side of the point. Mr.
LaCour said he owns the submerged land already and he doesn't need the riparian
rights. Attorney Roberts said the City/CRA want to keep the riparian rights.

Attorney Roberts confirmed
item #3. Mayor Green read question #3 as previously provided. Attorney Roberts said
the answer is yes, and Mr. LaCour agrees with the transfer of the submerged
lands south of the point but he wants the lease agreement as it relates to the
marina expansion in the future.

Vote on policy question #3, subject to the
leave back agreement: 5-1 in agreement with Member Talluto voting no. Mayor Green
abstained from voting.

4.Does
the City and CRA desire to lease to the developer, temporary public parking and
storm water on a portion of the Sweetwater site that could be used by the
marina, park users and other businesses to be located in the marina?

5.

The lease would provide for relocation of the
parking and storm water by the developer with no cost to the City in the event
that the City desires to develop the area for other uses.

Attorney Roberts asked
if the City/CRA want temporary parking on the point. Mr. LaCour agreed to move
the stormwater to south of Herbert St. Mr. Parker advised that Mr. LaCour will also
pay to relocate the temporary, shared parking in the future. Mr. LaCour said
there is a walkway that goes to the Riverboat that can be eliminated. He will
modify that on the site plan submitted to Staff.

Vote on policy question #4: 5-1, Councilman
Ford voted no to the temporary parking under a lease. Mayor Green abstained from
voting?

Member Talluto asked
if there is a limit on the temporary parking. Attorney Roberts said it can be a
limit as set by the City/CRA. Attorney Roberts will bring a proposed lease
agreement back at a future date.

6.Does
the City and the CRA want to remove Parcel 8, part of Parcel 9 and Parcel 12
located west of Halifax Drive from the exchange?

These parcels were identified in the Gladding
Jackson concept plan for the riverfront park. If the parcels are removed, then
the tax increment revenue potential is reduced. Parcel 12 includes the Indian
mound. The City and CRA understand that the developer may entomb the mound and
a marker could be placed noting the location of the mound. If the City retains
the mound, it can be incorporated into the park as a feature. If the mound is
transferred to the developer then it would be entombed and taxable.

Councilman Ford wants
the park to be preserved as on the Gladding Jackson map. Mr. Parker said the
map provided to Council/CRA shows the property lines. Attorney Roberts advised
that the Gladding Jackson map shows other items that are not of issue at this
time.

Councilman Ford made a motion to follow the Riverwalk
Property Exchange Map that depicts the park, and Seconded by Councilman
Burnette.

Mr. Parker said it
takes away some of the commercial value and how many square feet can be
developed.

Amendment to the Motion made by Councilman
Ford asking yes or no about keeping the Midden property.

Councilman Burnette
agreed with getting rid of the Midden property. Councilman Ford would like to
keep the Midden property because of the historical value. He would like to fit
it in the park. Councilman Kennedy would like to keep the property. Vice Mayor
Pohlmann agreed with getting rid of the property. Member Blahnik would like to
keep the property. Member Talluto agreed to get rid of the property.

Vote is tied 3-3 and the amendment fails. The
main motion was to keep all property. Vote is 6-0 to keep all property as listed
on the map. Mayor Green abstained from voting?

Discussion was held
regarding the roads on the Gladding Jackson plan.

Mayor Green asked Mr.
LaCour if they would/could do a plaque telling what the property was. Mr.
LaCour said yes and suggested that the City/CRA make it part of the park as
well, and include the Battle of Dunlawton, the Spanish/Indian Wars, etc.

Page 4, paragraph 9
pending revisions after policy determination.

7.Does
the City and CRA wish to obtain the appraisal prior to the execution of the
contract?

If the developers’ revisions to the paragraph
are included, then the city will be required to obtain the appraisals prior to
the execution of the contract and at least 60 additional days will be needed
before the terms can be finalized. All of the foregoing policy considerations
will have to be finalized and the applicable appraisals will have to be
obtained. Without the appraisals, the City and the CRA cannot determine
whether the City and the CRA will be obligated to pay a cash differential in order
to complete the transaction. Before signing the contract, the financial
impacts will have to be determined, budgeted and appropriated.

Attorney Roberts explained
the values of the park land vs. developers land and the need for the
appraisals. It is required by the City’s Code for the City/CRA to do two
appraisals prior to paying cash during a land transaction.

All agreed to authorize Staff to order
two appraisals.

Councilman Burnette wants to
make sure we are far enough in the process so that the money isn't wasted. Mr.
LaCour believes the actions tonight might have tipped the value so that the City
would owe money.